Neal v. State of California et al

Filing 21

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/29/2019 ADOPTING the 15 findings and recommendations to the extent they address plaintiff's motions for class certification and injunctive relief. Plaintiff's 8 motion for class certification is DENIED. Plaintiffs 6 motion for injunctive relief is DENIED. This matter is REFERRED back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ROBERT W. NEAL,

11
12
13
14

No. 2: 18-cv-1259 KJM KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief

17

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided

18

by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

19

On August 29, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which

20

were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings

21

and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to

22

the findings and recommendations.

23

The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602

24

F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.

25

See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the

26

magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”).

27

Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by

28

the record and by the proper analysis.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 29, 2018, are adopted to the extent

3

they address plaintiff’s motions for class certification and injunctive relief;

4

2. Plaintiff’s motion for class certification (ECF No. 8) is denied;

5

3. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 6) is denied; and

6

4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial

7

proceedings.

8

DATED: January 29, 2019.

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2